Basamma vs Hanamappa And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3224 Kant

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


      WRIT PETITION No.200065/2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

BASAMMA
W/O BASANAGOUDA DESAI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MALLESWAR TQ. MUDDEBIHAL
DIST. VIJAYAPUR
                                    ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     HANAMAPPA S/O SANJEEVAPPA
       MADAR @ DODDAMANI
       AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O GUNDAKANAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL
       DIST. VIJAYAPURA

2.     BHEEMAPPA S/O SANJEEVAPPA
       MADAR @ DODDAMANI
       AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O GUNDAKANAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL
       DIST. VIJAYAPURA

3.     BASAMMA
       W/O MANAPPA MADAR
       AGE: 42 YEARS,
       OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O GUNDAKANAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL
                           2




     DIST. VIJAYAPURA

4.   CHANDRAMMA
     W/O MALAGAPPA MADAR
     AGE: 40 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O GUNDAKANAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL
     DIST. VIJAYAPURA

5.   PAWADBASAPPA S/O SANJEEVAPPA
     MADAR @ DODDAMANI
     AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O GUNDAKANAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL
     DIST. VIJAYAPURA

6.   BALAPPA S/O SANJEEVAPPA
     MADAR @ DODDAMANI
     AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
     R/O GUNDAKANAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL
     DIST. VIJAYAPURA

7.   KASHIBAI W/O NAGAPPA MADAR
     AGE: 34 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O GUNDAKANAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL
     DIST. VIJAYAPURA

8.   SHANTAMMA
     W/O HALLEPPA KELAGINAMANI
     AGE: 34 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O GUNDAKANAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL
     DIST. VIJAYAPURA

9.   YALLAMMA
     W/O SANJEEVAPPA MADAR
     AGE: 80 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O GUNDAKANAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL
     DIST. VIJAYAPURA
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
                                   3




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MUDDEBIHAL,
DATED 04.12.2020 ON I.A.NO.III FILED BY DEFENDANT NO.1
IN O.S.NO.246/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE SAID I.A.


      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                                ORDER

Though this writ petition is listed for Preliminary

Hearing, by the consent of the parties, it is taken up for

final disposal.

2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated

04.12.2020 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC,

Muddebihal, in O.S.No.246/2016, allowing I.A.No.3.

3. Succinctly stated, facts are that the petitioner

has filed O.S.No.246/2016 seeking relief of permanent

injunction against the defendants. The defendants failed to

file written statement in time, however, made an attempt

to file written statement at the fag end of the proceedings,

that too, when the matter was posted for judgment.

Defendant No.1 filed written statement along with the

application for acceptance of the same which came to be

allowed by the trial Court with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Being

aggrieved by the same, plaintiff/petitioner has presented

this writ petition.

4. I have heard Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who has

contended that the impugned order does not disclose

reasons about the acceptance of the written statement at

the fag end of the proceedings and if the same is accepted,

there shall be no finality in the proceedings. Accordingly,

sought for interference of this Court.

5. Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that

the petitioner has filed O.S.No.246/2016 seeking relief of

permanent injunction and when the matter is posted for

judgment, defendant No.1 filed written statement along

with application under order VIII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section

151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to file

written statement. The trial Court after considering the

factual aspects on record and following the law declared by

this Court, as per paragraph No.7 of the order, allowed the

application in I.A.No.3 and consequently, accepted the

written statement with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Though I find

force in the submission made by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner that the defendants were not

diligent in filing written statement at the earliest point of

time, however, if an opportunity is given to the defendants

to contest the matter on merits, the same would lead to

effective adjudication of the matter, which cannot be

brushed aside by this Court while exercising jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I

do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by

the trial Court. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*